colhint Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 I was responding to someone else who mentioned it. It's one of those very strange things that anyone can count that it's not 40 days and yet the indoctrination kicks in and "everyone knows" it's 40 days because that's what they were taught. That's not particularly fair. I am researching a lot about the 100 years war (it wasn't 100 years) Even then some 1400 years after Christ, not many people could tell you what the date was. They were not sure which was the first day of the new year was. There are 5 different documented days when the English left Harfleur on the march to Calais. So its not surprising 1400 years before there were discrepancies To a Christian the bible is the word of god. God's word says Jesus was wandering for 40 days. People could count to 40 in the olden days. Christian sects change aspects of their celebrations all the time. Passiontide was only removed by the RCC in the 1970s. So why is lent still 44 days? This isn't about knowing what year it was, this is about counting to 40. And accepting wisdom on faith. I'm just wondering how many people in those days could count to 40. Certainly when you are transcribing that figure into different languages, then it depends on the local scribes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted February 13, 2013 Moderator Share Posted February 13, 2013 Hmmm..... this theory that the people who wrote the bible couldn't count must place into serious question just how many loafs and fishes Jesus had access to and just how many people he fed. Interesting..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 13, 2013 Share Posted February 13, 2013 They couldn't spell either, the early texts said Celebrate, not celibate. I'm not a believer by the way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newry_Villan Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 He couldn't resist returning to The Dark Side Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Look who's turned up outside the Vatican... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PussEKatt Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 Maybe the pope is just running away to join a circus, ( another one ?! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 14, 2013 Administrator Share Posted February 14, 2013 I'm just wondering how many people in those days could count to 40. Certainly when you are transcribing that figure into different languages, then it depends on the local scribes Perhaps the divinely inspired writers of the bible (who could read and write) couldn't count to 40. The number 40 appears a lot in the bible, so it might have been a synonym for "many", but that's some pretty rubbish divine inspiration and also doesn't explain why the RCC choose a different number for "many". Are you suggesting that by choosing 44 days for lent the RCC know better than what is stated in their own holy book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 (edited) I thought they added a few weekdays so they could exclude Sundays. Take out the four Sundays and add them to the 'fasting' days and voila, 44 days. Hence Lent starts after Ash Wednesday and not on a Sunday. Somefink like that. So the actual fasting is 40 days, while the time between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday is 44. Edited February 14, 2013 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 No not at all. Its more the fact that literacy and numeracy were far from common, almost rare even. Now when these texts were taken overseas, everything was reliant on the skill and diligence of local monks to translate them. Now I'm no theologian, I just read a lot of history. What is says in the Bible now, I have very little knowledge or interest. I do know that Christianity in England did not really come about until the Synod of Whitby, and at that time there was no real common Language in the country, English as we could recognise it didn't really come about for another 500 years. In this period The language changed dramatically, from local tongue, scandinavian, broken English, French then onto English. I could easily understand how scribes all around Europe made 100's of errors. It wasn't as though there was 1 original proof read copy and a gazillion were printed by hand. Further more I think around that time 700's ish. I think we were using Roman numerals for the upper classes and the old shepherd ( iang, tang etc) for counting etc. Now like I say, I'm not religious and couldn't tell you much of whats written in the Bible. If you have more knowledge in that area, that's fine. My only point being, people tend to overestimate peoples ability to read write or count in those times, and the scope for error in transcribing was huge. It doesn't just apply to the Bible by the way, it happened in all walks of life. Like I said I'm not a believer, nor am I trying to defend the Church. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 No not at all. Its more the fact that literacy and numeracy were far from common, almost rare even. Now when these texts were taken overseas, everything was reliant on the skill and diligence of local monks to translate them. Now I'm no theologian, I just read a lot of history. What is says in the Bible now, I have very little knowledge or interest. I do know that Christianity in England did not really come about until the Synod of Whitby, and at that time there was no real common Language in the country, English as we could recognise it didn't really come about for another 500 years. In this period The language changed dramatically, from local tongue, scandinavian, broken English, French then onto English. I could easily understand how scribes all around Europe made 100's of errors. It wasn't as though there was 1 original proof read copy and a gazillion were printed by hand. Further more I think around that time 700's ish. I think we were using Roman numerals for the upper classes and the old shepherd ( iang, tang etc) for counting etc. It has nothing to do with how the "40 days" figure came up in the first place, it has everything to do with how 44 is not 40 and the fact that this is conveniently overlooked not just in the pre-literate past but also in modern times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 14, 2013 Share Posted February 14, 2013 No not at all. Its more the fact that literacy and numeracy were far from common, almost rare even. Now when these texts were taken overseas, everything was reliant on the skill and diligence of local monks to translate them. Now I'm no theologian, I just read a lot of history. What is says in the Bible now, I have very little knowledge or interest. I do know that Christianity in England did not really come about until the Synod of Whitby, and at that time there was no real common Language in the country, English as we could recognise it didn't really come about for another 500 years. In this period The language changed dramatically, from local tongue, scandinavian, broken English, French then onto English. I could easily understand how scribes all around Europe made 100's of errors. It wasn't as though there was 1 original proof read copy and a gazillion were printed by hand. Further more I think around that time 700's ish. I think we were using Roman numerals for the upper classes and the old shepherd ( iang, tang etc) for counting etc. It has nothing to do with how the "40 days" figure came up in the first place, it has everything to do with how 44 is not 40 and the fact that this is conveniently overlooked not just in the pre-literate past but also in modern times. fair enough. No problem with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 14, 2013 Administrator Share Posted February 14, 2013 I thought they added a few weekdays so they could exclude Sundays. Take out the four Sundays and add them to the 'fasting' days and voila, 44 days. Hence Lent starts after Ash Wednesday and not on a Sunday. Somefink like that. So the actual fasting is 40 days, while the time between Ash Wednesday and Easter Sunday is 44. If that is the case, either lent is not based on Jesus walking in the wilderness, or he did, but he stopped wondering and went home for Sunday lunch every week. Seems legit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leviramsey Posted February 14, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted February 14, 2013 Any relationship between modern Christianity and Jesus's acts and preaching is entirely coincidental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 15, 2013 Administrator Share Posted February 15, 2013 Levi, I'm not sure that's true. We have a single source which describes the Jesus's alleged life and that source has been heavily edited several times and is highly self-contradictory. I think the best we can say is that modern Christianity isn't even related to it's own fairy story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 I posted a great explanatory post last night. Explained all about literacy in the middle ages, and how the Church was the catalyst for mans thinking, then went on to say I didn't believe in God. The the whole site went down. I ain't going to do it again, but I reckon someone up there didn't like what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 15, 2013 Administrator Share Posted February 15, 2013 I did foretell the site going down though. I should start a cult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 15, 2013 Share Posted February 15, 2013 'pon my word, tis right. my Lord Limpid. He's not a naughty boy, he really saw the future. Now after my sins he sends thunderbolts from the sky,(wise men may follow the star) One to crash into Russia. But if I say 10 hail Mary's could you make the one coming in about 40 minutes miss the earth by about 17,000 miles. If you can do that I will believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
limpid Posted February 15, 2013 Administrator Share Posted February 15, 2013 I've been concentrating on this mighty task and now will have a day of rest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legov Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 I posted a great explanatory post last night. Explained all about literacy in the middle ages, and how the Church was the catalyst for mans thinking, then went on to say I didn't believe in God. The the whole site went down. I ain't going to do it again, but I reckon someone up there didn't like what I wrote. Mind re-posting it on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted February 16, 2013 Share Posted February 16, 2013 http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343606 Letter to Italian President alleges Pope seeks 'legal immunity' LIKE THIS ARTICLE28 By Greta McClain Feb 15, 2013 - 11 hours ago in Religion 3 comments 10 920 342 1 Google +12 Rome - A letter by the Secretary of the International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State alleges Pope Benedict XVI is asking the Italian government to grant him protection and immunity from legal prosecution. On Monday, Digital Journal reported Pope Benedict XVI had announced he would resign on February 28. In his announcement, the Pope stated: “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry." The sudden resignation has led to conspiracy theories, with some saying it is related to the Pope's confidential papers that were stolen by the Pope's butler, Paolo Gabriele. At the time of Gabriele's trial, it was alleged that the papers revealed financial corruption within the Vatican. Others allege the resignation is due to a sex scandal which will soon be revealed. The Vatican continues to say that the resignation is due to the Pope's "advancing age". A statement issued by International Tribunal into Crime of Church and State (ITCCS) may point towards a pending scandal however. On Thursday, the ITCCS issued a statement saying the Pope has requested to with Italian President Giorgio Napolitano on February 23rd. The Vatican Information Service has confirmed that the Pope is scheduled to meet with Napolitano on the 23rd. The ITCCS claims the Pope sought the meeting to ask for immunity from prosecution by the Screen Capture Letter from Rev. Kevin D. Annett to Italian President Giorgio Napolitano Like this image Italian government. In a letter to Napolitano, ITCCS Secretary, Rev. Kevin Annett, says: "I need not remind you, Mr. President, that under international law and treaties that have been ratified by Italy, you and your government are forbidden from granting such protection to those like Joseph Ratzinger [real name of Pope Benedict XVI] who have aided and abetted criminal actions, such as ordering Bishops and Cardinals in America and elsewhere to protect known child rapists among their clergy. Your obligation to the Vatican through the Lateran Treaty does not negate or nullify the requirements of these higher moral and international laws; nor does it require that you give any protection or immunity to a single individual like Joseph Ratzinger, especially after he has left his papal office." The letter goes on to point to "documented" crimes of child trafficking and torture, alleging that the crimes are linked to the Pope Benedict and other Vatican officials. On November 25, 1981, Pope John Paul II named Ratzinger as the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. As such, Ratzinger was in charge of investigations into the crimes which the Catholic Church considers as being the most serious of all, including crimes against the sixth Commandment ("thou shall not commit adultery") committed by a cleric against a person under the age of eighteen. A Guardian report also refers to the fact Pope John Paul II appointed Ratzinger to oversee the sex scandals that were erupting in the United States and Ireland. The report quotes Jakob Purkarthofer, of Austria's Platform for Victims of Church Violence, as saying: "Ratzinger was part of the system and is co-responsible for these crimes. He should have come clean about the abuses." According to a Los Angeles Times report, while Ratzinger was in charge of overseeing all investigations into sexual abuse allegations, memos written by Archbishop Roger M. Mahony and Msgr. Thomas J. Curry between 1986-1987 showed a "concerted effort...to shield abusers from police." It is alleged that Ratzinger was aware of these memos. In 2001, a letter written by Ratzinger clarified the confidentiality of internal church investigations into accusations of sexual abuse by priests. The Bishops Accountability organization states that Ratzinger ordered bishops worldwide to maintain absolute secrecy about priest pedophilia and to simply transfer them from one parish to another. In 2010, Ratzinger, who was then Pope Benedict, was named as a defendant in a law suit alleging he was aware of a priest in the United States who had sexually abused boys. When the lawyers for the plaintiff withdrew the case, the Vatican issued a statement saying it was a "major victory", proving the Pope could not be held liable. In what some claim is proof the Pope was involved in sex scandal cover-ups and is attempting to avoid prosecution, a Vatican official has stated Pope Benedict has decided to continue to live at the Vatican after his resignation goes in effect. The source told Yahoo! News: "His continued presence in the Vatican is necessary, otherwise he might be defenseless. He wouldn't have his immunity, his prerogatives, his security, if he is anywhere else. It is absolutely necessary [he stays in the Vatican so he can have] a dignified existence." It is unclear why Pope Benedict would consider asking for immunity, if that is indeed his plan. Some speculate it is because it would give him the freedom to leave Vatican City, saying otherwise he would essentially be a prisoner. It is equally unclear whether President Napolitano would consider granting immunity. What is clear is that these latest allegations adds fuel to the conspiracy theories, as well as calling into the question the real reason why Pope Benedict decided to resign. Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/343606#ixzz2L4sPs7ex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts